Such is the inability of the anti-monarchist campaign group ‘Republic’ to understand data, or the United Kingdom’s constitution, that last week the group’s CEO, Graham Smith, stated in the Guardian that ‘A British Republic is inevitable’. It is in fact not inevitable, nor, as Smith argues, would it be beneficial. For too long, the debate over the monarchy has been trivialised, often with discourses around the tourism sector dominating. It is naïve to think tourism income is a sufficient justification for an institution that, other than for a decade under the Interregnum of Cromwell, has functioned uninterrupted for a millennium. Instead, any debate on the United Kingdom’s governance framework must be centred on the monarchy’s apolitical approach to ensure parliamentary supremacy. The monarchy is a vital bulwark against extremism, providing a solid foundation upon which healthy, functioning democracy can stand. These aspects of the monarchy are important and transcend cost. To possess a monarch, rather than a politician (whose electoral popularity is temporary, and term of office limited), that can speak with a unifying heft, is a gift that only strengthens democracy.
It is worth first drilling down on the inaccuracies of Graham Smith’s article; statistics are the sole crux of his argument, yet he disingenuously accentuates and sensationalises them. Republic’s research declares the entire institutional costs of the Royal Family to be £510 million (it must be pointed out, though, that this is not the total cost to the taxpayer). Smith and Republic often, however, neglect to mention that the taxpayer-funded component of the Royal Family, the Sovereign Grant, equates to a cost of just 77p per person in the United Kingdom. This cost - which enables the United Kingdom, as well as His Majesty’s other realms, to enjoy a non-partisan Head of State who exudes stability and assuredness - is without doubt value for money.
The connection that many, including Smith, make between poor governance and the monarchy is utterly wrong. Smith purports that one of the worst consequences of monarchy is the funnelling of too much political power into the office of the Prime Minister. Yet it is difficult to understand how a Head of State, either chosen by the legislature, (such as in Germany), or directly elected (as in France), would result in a reduction in the power of the head of government. This new non-monarchical Head of State would add unnecessary partisanship to the role, politicising the position and increasing the concentration of power held by the government, who would be able to use the tools of parliament with great freedom to achieve political aims.
The monarch’s fundamental purpose is to cement the precedence of Parliament. This is vital, as it is Parliament from which the Prime Minister draws his power. That power is also necessarily restricted by Parliament, as the Prime Minister is required to command the confidence of the House of Commons in order to govern and must possess a working majority in order to pass legislation. It is imperative that the monarchy is viewed in the context of that parliamentary democracy of which it is an indispensable component. Combined with a Parliament that holds legislative supremacy, the monarch is an anaemic Head of State prevented from overreach by elected parliamentarians and centuries of precedence and convention. Charles I’s attempt to arrest the Five Members may have contributed towards the outbreak of the Civil War which ended his reign, but Cromwell and other 17th century republicans managed to secure the long-term future of the hereditary monarchy by hastening necessary reform. Ensuring the monarchy remains undoubtedly separate from the representative power of the people (no clearer than in the monarch’s continued prohibition from the House of Commons) has rightfully ensured the longevity of the institution.
There are a plethora of far more pressing domestic problems, none of which would be solved by transitioning to a republic; republicanism is fundamentally a solution to a non-existent issue. Republicans fail to appreciate or understand the critical position the strictly apolitical monarchy holds, an institution stringently committed to upholding the British democratic system. To criticise the monarchy with pedantic cost-focused arguments which are minimal in the context of the budget of a G7 economy (absurdly, in Republic’s case, comparing these costs with those of the internationally obscure and irrelevant Irish Presidency) is lazy. More importantly, though, misunderstanding the cruciality of the monarchy within British parliamentary democracy shows the republican cause is motivated by envy and a dislike of the institution’s personalities. The republican argument is often trivial and completely unable to identify the singularity, distinctiveness and irreplaceability of monarchy, which is unprecedented in its ability to carry out core state functions in an independent and dependable way.
Image: Flickr/Catholic Church England and Wales (Mazur/cbcew.org.uk)
No image changes made.
Comentários